Yes, I actually think the ontological argument for God's existence is the most powerful argument, but it must be properly understood. Kant's famous critique of the ontological argument is that "being is not a property", so I do not add anything to a notion by saying that it exists. Kant gives the notion of 100 thalers, and says that nothing is added to the notion if we say it exists. Existence adds no difference between the concept and its object.Read the discourse on the method part 4 by René Descartes. He explains how he proved the existance of a greater being, whom he calls God. — René Descartes
we humans, in our current knowledge, don't know enough to make a concrete, science-based conclusion on the existence or nonexistance of a God. — Starthrower
Unless we lose humanity and become a hyperdimensional being, we cannot prove or disprove a God. — Starthrower
Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower
To make "sense"to me means understanding that the concept is rational, logical, and reasonable. In my (our??) world, the Western World, and from the perspective of a scientist, the concept of god does not make "sense" . The existence of a god is a profound phenomenon which requires profound evidence, so far for which has not ever been presented. — Life101
Some would say Einstein was a believer, which is not true. — Life101
I'm not an atheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written these books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws.
You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.
Show me the evidence. — Life101
An omnipresent entity leaves no room for individuals, or fragmentation of any kind, because multiple beings can’t occupy the same space and remain separate. — ShowOfForce
show me the evidence, not articles from a quick google search on wiki. — Life101
You say "a believer would answer that the Universe IS the answer". Is that really adequate for you? — Life101
no evidence had been supplied — Life101
One of the problems with answering this question, using science, is the connected to the philosophy of science. As an example, say I had a dream. I relate my dream details to a group of scientists. My account would never be accepted as fact, even if I am honest and accurate, since my dream violates the philosophy of science. There is no way to verify my claims, nor is there any way for others to reproduce my dream, for verification. Yet, paradoxically, we have all had dreams and can understand that my claims are not out of the realm of possibility. However, it violates the philosophy. — wellwisher
This is not true even about ordinary things — SophistiCat
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.